Jump to content
Granny Danger

Coronavirus and the Scottish Championship

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

What about when the Government’s contribution to the furlough scheme is tapered and only covers a percentage of the furlough payment?  Should a club continue to pay their share of the player’s furlough payment even though they know they will not be keeping them on once the furlough scheme finally ends?  
 

Thats a different decision for a different situation which we havent reached yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

What about when the Government’s contribution to the furlough scheme is tapered and only covers a percentage of the furlough payment?  Should a club continue to pay their share of the player’s furlough payment even though they know they will not be keeping them on once the furlough scheme finally ends?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SueSue said:
35 minutes ago, Shadow Play said:

What about when the Government’s contribution to the furlough scheme is tapered and only covers a percentage of the furlough payment?  Should a club continue to pay their share of the player’s furlough payment even though they know they will not be keeping them on once the furlough scheme finally ends?  

By that time football clubs could be building a squad back up giving players a bit of a chance to find a club. 
We are talking about the here and now

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure why some deem it classless to bring your manager back to work to be involved in giving the bad news to the players. It's obvioulsy a crap job for anyone to do but, if you have to be given bad news in a work-related context, getting it from your immediate manager who you know and have developed a working relationship with over the last year is surely more appropriate than getting it from a director who you maybe see on a home match day and hardly any other time. Sorry, don't understand that criticism at all.

On the issue of doing it at all, the ethics of it are difficult and it's not black and white. On one side, it's horrible for players to end up out of work with no prospect of finding another club soon, especially when there was a way of postponing that. On the other side, retaining players you'd otherwise let go on one-month contracts certainly seems to go against the spirit of the furlough scheme, whether or not it would constitute an abuse in law as per the quoted section above. Its intent was to keep people employed  rather than have mass redundancies and ensure there were jobs for people to go back to, therefore, if you use it keep people who have no realistic prospect of a job once the scheme ends, that too is ethically dubious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm really not sure why some deem it classless to bring your manager back to work to be involved in giving the bad news to the players. It's obvioulsy a crap job for anyone to do but, if you have to be given bad news in a work-related context, getting it from your immediate manager who you know and have developed a working relationship with over the last year is surely more appropriate than getting it from a director who you maybe see on a home match day and hardly any other time. Sorry, don't understand that criticism at all.

On the issue of doing it at all, the ethics of it are difficult and it's not black and white. On one side, it's horrible for players to end up out of work with no prospect of finding another club soon, especially when there was a way of postponing that. On the other side, retaining players you'd otherwise let go on one-month contracts certainly seems to go against the spirit of the furlough scheme, whether or not it would constitute an abuse in law as per the quoted section above. Its intent was to keep people employed  rather than have mass redundancies and ensure there were jobs for people to go back to, therefore, if you use it keep people who have no realistic prospect of a job once the scheme ends, that too is ethically dubious.

Aye, the black and white are not very ethical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr X said:

that seems pretty clear that clubs could extend the contracts of players. Obviously, certain clubs are getting different legal advice

BBC article with Tom Beadling maybe clears up what the likes of Dunfermline/QOS are getting told.

20200523_151704.thumb.jpg.8134b99f8a7bfe5fd02e936a30abf084.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

BBC article with Tom Beadling maybe clears up what the likes of Dunfermline/QOS are getting told.

20200523_151704.thumb.jpg.8134b99f8a7bfe5fd02e936a30abf084.jpg

Rather than clubs all taking individual advice, it would make sense for the SPFL to contact HMRC for clarification. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Socks said:

On the issue of doing it at all, the ethics of it are difficult and it's not black and white. On one side, it's horrible for players to end up out of work with no prospect of finding another club soon, especially when there was a way of postponing that. On the other side, retaining players you'd otherwise let go on one-month contracts certainly seems to go against the spirit of the furlough scheme, whether or not it would constitute an abuse in law as per the quoted section above. Its intent was to keep people employed  rather than have mass redundancies and ensure there were jobs for people to go back to, therefore, if you use it keep people who have no realistic prospect of a job once the scheme ends, that too is ethically dubious.

People who had handed in their notice or been given notice were eligible to be rehired just to get them on the furlough scheme even though they were never going to work another hour for that company again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Socks said:

I'm really not sure why some deem it classless to bring your manager back to work to be involved in giving the bad news to the players. It's obvioulsy a crap job for anyone to do but, if you have to be given bad news in a work-related context, getting it from your immediate manager who you know and have developed a working relationship with over the last year is surely more appropriate than getting it from a director who you maybe see on a home match day and hardly any other time. Sorry, don't understand that criticism at all.

It’s not classless but seems bizarre to take a manager off furlough and be on the hook for 100% of his wages just to tell players they are being let go as a cost cutting measure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Flash said:

Rather than clubs all taking individual advice, it would make sense for the SPFL to contact HMRC for clarification. 

100% correct. Best post of this thread.

The only problem is, would that not require the SPFL to show some foresight and leadership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ribzanelli said:

It’s not classless but seems bizarre to take a manager off furlough and be on the hook for 100% of his wages just to tell players they are being let go as a cost cutting measure

I don’t think it’s particularly classless or classy tbh.  It’s quite common for line managers to be asked to deliver bad news.   

I’m not sure here but I think you can turn on and off furlough. Many companies are rotating staff for example.  So it’s not like we’re taking on his wages permanently again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think furlough is a 3 week minimum tho so just a bit weird. Pretty sure you can speak to employees without necessarily ‘breaking’ furlough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

1) I'm not sure here but I think you can turn on and off furlough. Many companies are rotating staff for example.  

2) So it’s not like we’re taking on his wages permanently again.

1) No, you can't. You have to do at least 3 weeks. 

2) Yes, you are - and if he has been taken back early from his 3 weeks - you'll be paying all that back too. ( @Flash)

I was under the impression it was any time early although that might just be an agreement in my work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ribzanelli said:

People who had handed in their notice or been given notice were eligible to be rehired just to get them on the furlough scheme even though they were never going to work another hour for that company again

I'm sure that has indeed happened, but only really backs up my point about the kind of thing we're discussing being ethically dubious. The kind of things you're on about are more extreme examples than player contracts being extended, but if someone has already handed in their notice then it's blatant abuse. Surely we're not saying that kind of behaviour is OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm sure that has indeed happened, but only really backs up my point about the kind of thing we're discussing being ethically dubious. The kind of things you're on about are more extreme examples than player contracts being extended, but if someone has already handed in their notice then it's blatant abuse. Surely we're not saying that kind of behaviour is OK?

Of course its ok. Generally people hand in their notice because they have another job to go to. If that job is then removed because of the pandemic, their previous employers have been allowed to re-hire them and put them on furlough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm sure that has indeed happened, but only really backs up my point about the kind of thing we're discussing being ethically dubious. The kind of things you're on about are more extreme examples than player contracts being extended, but if someone has already handed in their notice then it's blatant abuse. Surely we're not saying that kind of behaviour is OK?

I’m pretty sure the government clarified this was ok so don’t see why a football club can’t extend an employee who they have no need for just to get them through this but a ‘regular’ employer can? This cheating the public purse narrative is a smokescreen, those now unemployed will now be supported by the state, only via an alternative mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mr X said:

Of course its ok. Generally people hand in their notice because they have another job to go to. If that job is then removed because of the pandemic, their previous employers have been allowed to re-hire them and put them on furlough.

I take your point, but still don't really feel comfortable with it being used in those circumstances. If people are re-hired without any prospect of working in the same place when the scheme ends, then it isn't really a job retention scheme at all.

I'm not arguing especially hard in either direction - I genuinely think it's a really tough one for all clubs and I'm pulled both ways by what the 'least wrong' thing to do is. It'll be interesting to find out this week what the other clubs decide to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can't see Morton keeping on players right now that they have no intention of playing next season and nor should they. Our casualty list might not be that high as I can't see Hopkin having a clearout but in most recent seasons there'd have been a dozen first team players out the door by now anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Socks said:

I'm pulled both ways by what the 'least wrong' thing to do is. It'll be interesting to find out this week what the other clubs decide to do.

The 'least wrong' thing to do is tick a box and - at worst - cover the players' wages for a month then get the money back. 

The only reason that I can see not to keep players on furlough is that the club simply does not have enough money to cover the wages (if it come to that) until the claim was then paid out. Which in itself, must be worrying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...